A typical pole such as a flagpole or light pole has a small footprint as its ground embedded foundation is small. However, these poles are not easily movable because of their foundation requirements. Wong U.S. Pat. No. 8,317,226, issued Nov. 27, 2012, discloses a foundationless pole installation system that enables a pole to be installed and relocated easily and quickly. It offers significant advantages in certain applications such as in temporary surveillance where quick installation and relocation of a pole is important. The disclosed approach in the patent uses a wider than typical base at the bottom of the pole to provide stability to prevent the center of gravity of the pole from falling beyond its base (a toppling over condition). However, a significant disadvantage of the foundationless pole system is its relatively large footprint. While the footprint size is normally not a problem, in a tight site such as a congested urban construction site, the sizable footprint requirement makes the system less desirable.
It is known to utilize a fixed heavy concrete base for attaching a metal pole on top of it to mount cameras. Equipment is housed inside the heavy concrete base to further increase its weight. This approach lowers the center of gravity of the pole system relative to its base to prevent it from toppling over. The obvious down side to this alternate approach is the heavy weight required. Weight lifting equipment is needed to install or relocate the pole system.
Mobility and ease of installation are both important and desirable. However, these two attributes are not normally compatible with security and stability. For example, one can install a camera pole on a wheeled platform or a lightweight platform for mobility or ease of installation. The problem is the lack of security or stability. A thief or other unauthorized individual can simply wheel or carry the unit away, not to mention the risks of toppling over. For practical use, a pole requires a certain height to be effective for mounting its payload. Safety and risk of toppling over are always a serious concern of any taller poles. The situation is even more acute if the “payload” is a solar panel or a large sign, which draws a large wind force. The challenge to create a pole system that is easy to install, to move, to relocate, to avoid theft, to resist heavy wind load, and with a small footprint is truly daunting.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,317,226 addresses some of the difficulties described above, but not the relatively large footprint problem.
Utilizing the invention disclosed herein, the footprint area can be reduced very substantially so that use at congested tight sites is possible.
Reducing the pole base substantially, say to a quarter of its footprint area would not solve the problem. This approach will only work if the wind load on the pole is minimal. For many practical applications where wind load is a serious consideration, this simplistic approach does not work. When the base of a foundationless pole is drastically reduced, the pull out force on the anchors holding down the pole will increase substantially, requiring concrete foundation for the anchor bolts or very long earth anchor screws, resulting in a big jump in installation difficulty. In addition, when very deep anchors are required at tight sites, the pole placement locations will be greatly restricted in order to avoid underground utility lines. The known prior art approach of adding fixed weight to the pole creates a different form of difficulty in terms of weight lifting equipment being required.
The subject invention uses a rolling weight box and integrates it to a foundationless pole that has a small footprint in an innovative manner. No weight lifting equipment is required. This new system overcomes all the challenges listed above.
The following prior art is believed to be representative of the current state of the prior art in this field: U.S. Pat. No. 8,317,226, issued Nov. 27, 2012, U.S. Pat. No. 639,286, issued Dec. 19, 1899, U.S. Pat. No. 2,792,948, issued May 21, 1957, U.S. Pat. No. 3,112,037, issued Nov. 26, 1963, U.S. Pat. No. 3,190,465, issued Jun. 22, 1965, U.S. Pat. No. 3,236,398, issued Feb. 22, 1966, U.S. Pat. No. 3,267,627, issued Aug. 23, 1966, U.S. Pat. No. 3,315,976, issued Apr. 25, 1967, U.S. Pat. No. 3,680,448, issued Aug. 1, 1972, U.S. Pat. No. 3,792,980, issued Feb. 19, 1974, U.S. Pat. No. 3,820,906, issued Jun. 28, 1974, U.S. Pat. No. 3,895,471, issued Jul. 22, 1975, U.S. Pat. No. 3,941,083, issued Mar. 2, 1976, U.S. Pat. No. 4,079,559, issued Mar. 21, 1978, U.S. Pat. No. 4,114,766, issued Sep. 19, 1978, U.S. Pat. No. 4,311,324, issued Jan. 19, 1982, U.S. Pat. No. 4,362,451, issued Dec. 7, 1982, U.S. Pat. No. 4,492,496, issued Jan. 8, 1985, U.S. Pat. No. 4,926,592, issued May 22, 1990, U.S. Pat. No. 5,058,336, issued Oct. 22, 1991, U.S. Pat. No. 5,248,157, issued Sep. 28, 1993, U.S. Pat. No. 5,476,352, issued Dec. 19, 1995, U.S. Pat. No. 5,634,759, issued Jun. 3, 1997, U.S. Pat. No. 5,782,040, issued Jul. 21, 1998, U.S. Pat. No. 5,794,378, issued Aug. 18, 1998, U.S. Pat. No. 5,899,651, issued May 4, 1999, U.S. Pat. No. 5,927,925, issued Jul. 27, 1999, U.S. Pat. No. 6,191,355, issued Feb. 20, 2001, U.S. Pat. No. 6,216,414, issued Apr. 17, 2001, U.S. Pat. No. 6,264,162, issued Jul. 24, 2001, U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,038, issued Nov. 27, 2001, U.S. Pat. No. 6,390,436, issued May 21, 2002, U.S. Pat. No. 6,399,881, issued Jun. 4, 2002, U.S. Pat. No. 6,428,242, issued Aug. 6, 2002, U.S. Pat. No. 6,709,215, issued Mar. 23, 2004, U.S. Pat. No. 6,851,231, issued Feb. 8, 2005, U.S. Pat. No. 6,955,025, issued Oct. 18, 2005, U.S. Pat. No. 7,267,516, issued Sep. 11, 2007, U.S. Pat. No. 7,275,351, issued Oct. 2, 2007 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,866,927, issued Jan. 11, 2011.